Centric Jones Co. v. City of Kearney

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-1964

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; March 26, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Centric Jones Company, a Colorado limited partnership, appealed a district court's summary judgment favoring the City of Kearney, Nebraska, regarding a dispute over a construction contract for the Kearney Wastewater Treatment Plant worth $12,950,000. The contract designated CH2M Hill as the City's project engineer, responsible for reviewing payment applications from Centric and recommending payments to the city council. Throughout the project, Centric submitted thirty payment applications, resulting in mixed outcomes: full payments for twelve applications, partial payments for twelve, and overpayments for six. After unsuccessful mediation in May 1999, Centric demanded $1,266,486.53 in September 1999, which the City rejected, offering $670,256 instead. Centric subsequently filed suit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment seeking over $2 million in damages. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, citing Centric's failure to comply with the claims statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. 16-726, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court also denied Centric's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The appeal affirmed the lower court's decision without addressing the City's cross-appeal, as Centric did not prevail.

Centric seeks a reversal based on four arguments: (1) it complied, or substantially complied, with Nebraska Revised Statute section 16-726, thus its claim is not time-barred; (2) the City should be equitably estopped from asserting that section 16-726 applies; (3) material factual disputes exist between the parties, making summary judgment inappropriate; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by denying Centric's motion to amend or alter the judgment. 

The court reviews summary judgment de novo, determining if, when viewing facts favorably to the non-moving party, any genuine issues of material fact exist. Similarly, it reviews state law interpretations and contract interpretations de novo, while a denial of a Rule 59 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Centric claims it complied with section 16-726, which mandates that claims against a first-class city be filed within ninety days with the city clerk. The district court found that Centric did not file a claim with the city clerk, thus the claim was untimely. Centric's alternative argument of substantial compliance through submission of payment applications to CH2M was rejected, as substantial compliance requires filing with the designated recipient, which in this case is the city clerk. The court found no evidence that Centric filed a claim for the damages sought.

Centric's argument for equitable estoppel, based on the City's designation of CH2M as its agent for payment requests, was also rejected. The court noted that the contract between the parties required compliance with section 16-726 for claims, thus upholding the district court's ruling.

Centric contends that material factual disputes exist between the parties, which would render summary judgment inappropriate. However, the court disagrees, identifying three alleged issues: (1) the opportunity for CH2M or Stocker to investigate and resolve the payment applications; (2) whether the city clerk received those applications; and (3) whether the City waived the application of section 16-726. The court finds that even if the first two issues are disputed, they do not impact the case's outcome and therefore do not prevent summary judgment. Regarding the alleged waiver, the court notes that the contract requires adherence to statutory notice-of-claim procedures and other regulations, and there is insufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning waiver. Consequently, the court concludes no genuine issues exist that would preclude summary judgment for the City. Additionally, Centric's claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying its motion to amend or alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is also rejected. The court finds no errors of law or fact and upholds the district court's judgment, stating that further elaboration on Centric's arguments lacks precedential value.